Forum menu
That changed the law.
This incident was six years ago, I'm told.
z1ppy - MemberNowt wrong with that in my book, why should the ppl prepared to follow the laws of this country be responsible for those that don't?
Following the laws, like drifting across lanes on a motorway in a truck and causing an accident? Albeit with a schrodinger's car that may or may not have been there
The "shouldn't have been there" argument seems absurd, if not them, then someone else would probably have been hit instead.
Wow, so he actually didn't do a single thing wrong, apart from being insured with a company who presented their DD early and didn't tell him. For which he gets stuffed and the other driver gets away with being rubbish.
What have I missed?
The "shouldn't have been there" argument is quite clearly fallacious (to a layman like me), as the truck shouldn't have been there either.
is the judgement crankboy refers to in case anybody else is interested.
Not read that yet, though I note in this comment http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-r-v-hughes/ on the appeal court ruling (before the supreme court case) they say "even where his or her driving was faultless and the victim was, in civil law terms, entirely responsible for the accident" - which suggests that the writer of the blog doesn't consider the criminal liability covered in the case to have any bearing on civil liability.
DD due 5th of month, money went in 4th. DD was presented 3rd. bounced, at 1138am, insurance cancelled.
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused. I reckon there are details in your mate's story missing, like maybe 2 or 3 refused DDs. Seems fishy to have cancelled insurance so quickly.
The cancelled insurance due to early DD request scenario happened to me, luckily I found out when I went to tax the van online (rather than by getting pulled over by the police)
It was trade policy too, which covered me to drive clients vehicles up to £250k in value, and also incorporated my public liability insurance.
I now have an alarm set on my phone for the first of every month, to remind me to check the DD and make sure I'm still covered !
I now have an alarm set on my phone for the first of every month, to remind me to check the DD and make sure I'm still covered !
Bloody hell. 😯
Fairy nuff, I always thought they'd try again, but not cancel the insurance in the meantime.
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused.
[i]it was the first dd payment after the deposit and it was cancelled same day as the requested it.[/i]
Phew, made it to the bottom of the supreme court ruling, and right at the bottom is this gem:
The certified question in this case asks:
“Is an offence contrary to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988,
as amended by section 21(1) of the Road Safety Act 2006,
committed by an unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driver when
the circumstances are that the manner of his or her driving is
faultless and the deceased was (in terms of civil law) 100%
responsible for causing the fatal accident or collision?”
I think I'd be quoting that if involved in a civil case like Cougar's mate's. Clearly the judges aren't actually defining the civil law there (they go on to point out "enquiry into apportionment of liability in civil terms is not appropriate to a criminal trial"), but to them the separation of civil liability from any offence of driving without insurance is so obvious they don't need to explain it.
By the sounds of things the case was before this ruling, but since the ruling didn't change anything regarding civil liability that is irrelevant - the civil court got it totally wrong.
Yep, sounds fishy. 🙂
I ended up driving without insurance for months because my insurer at the time responded to a change of address notification, recalculated the premium and sent a request for the extra amount due to the new address. After a couple of reminders they'd received nothing back so they cancelled the policy.
I hadn't moved house or requested any change of address, and so didn't know about any of this until I called them up to renew. These days it would probably have come to light a lot sooner through ANPR but it looks like it would cost me at least some points and a fine when it did. I never got a satisfactory explanation from them about the change of address malarkey.
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused.
Mine admitted it "probably" shouldn't have been cancelled, and apologised.
The did however, as a parting shot say ...
"Look on the bright side, you've saved just over a grand by not paying your premiums for three months!"
They had a point. We bought a new bed. 🙂
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused. I reckon there are details in your mate's story missing, like maybe 2 or 3 refused DDs. Seems fishy to have cancelled insurance so quickly.
I've heard of it plenty of times, usually through the shitty companies younger drivers go with when they want to drive something other than a boggo basic Micra. Swift were quite notorious for it IIRC (or some mob based in NI with a similar name).
+ a bazillion. In cougar's uninsured for 20mins case if he's sat waiting at a red light* and gets hit by a dangerous driver during those 20minutes it's his fault, 5minutes either side of that window and the dangerous driver would be held 100% to blame. Proper ****ed up! Like I said deal with the pertinent physics/details of the accident then check the paperwork of those involved. OP case is some pretty messed up victim blaming.the civil court got it totally wrong.
What if a lorry ploughs into a line of cars? cars 1, 2 and 4 are innocent victims but if the insurance of car 3s driver had lapsed is the entire thing all his fault? Or do the lorry insurers just payout for everyone else but car 3?
*I'm picking cut and dried cases obviously, less obvious incidents where the behaviour of driver B may have an affect on the incident such as no license or unfit to drive in some way - these will need looking at. Still having difficulty seeing how not being insured has a bearing on the cause/outcome of an incident. By all means throw the book at uninsured drivers but don't pin the blame of collisions that weren't their fault on them.
Was there really nothing about giving him notice prior to the cancellation of the policy in his contract t&cs?
Bizarre contract if so, surprised that it would be enforceable to be able to withdraw a service and place an individual in a position where they are breaking the law with no warning. Unfair contract term?
Insurance companies are often weasels who will do anything to wriggle out of a claim, but if it's as he describes, he has nothing to lose by pursuing this through the complaints system to the financial ombudsman.
As above, it's an odd civil court ruling, that one.
An Insurer wouldn't just cancel insurance without trying to reach the keeper/customer first. Cancel, then send a letter doesn't wash. He'd have had a letter chasing funds with the caveat warning him first.
I wish I had Hora's confidence in the moral rectitude of the insurance industry. It was for me eroded away a long time ago.
Was there really nothing about giving him notice prior to the cancellation of the policy in his contract t&cs?
Dunno. Even if there was, realistically how many people would've read all the fine print? I expect it's a minority.
An Insurer wouldn't just cancel insurance without trying to reach the keeper/customer first. Cancel, then send a letter doesn't wash. He'd have had a letter chasing funds with the caveat warning him first.
Again, I don't know. I'm taking the story on faith, as I said earlier. Though even if for the sake of argument that's the case and he knew he was uninsured though, does that change anything? It's still, to my mind, a surprising ruling.
I wish I had Hora's confidence in the moral rectitude of the insurance industry. It was for me eroded away a long time ago.
Hey - I'm paying the same price that I did almost 10yrs ago for literally the same car (model) yet every single benefit has been weaselled down. No more fully comp on other insured drivers cars, higher replacement windscreen costs, lower payout on injuries etc etc.
One thing- if it was a first time DD fail they wouldn't automatically cancel your policy in practice. They would CALL you or write to you first even if the T&C's say they can. Its your call if you decide not to open or read your mail.
An Insurer wouldn't just cancel insurance without trying to reach the keeper/customer first. Cancel, then send a letter doesn't wash. He'd have had a letter chasing funds with the caveat warning him first.
My own personal experience tells me otherwise. (See above)
In my case, my insurance was actually cancelled two days BEFORE the direct debit payment was due.
No letters were sent or phone calls made.
Haven't read the other replys but in the eyes of the law the uninsured driver is at fault and no blame or liability will be with driver A.
It is a similar scenario if driver B was drink driving, even if they were not at fault and had god as their witness, the fact that they were drink driving would automatically place them at fault in the eyes of the law and driver A would not be liable for anything.
Due to money being tight in the past, I watch my DDs like a hawk every month to make sure they have gone out. This is the only way to be sure. Its the only way cougar's mate would have been sure. However if they presented a day early then this wouldn't have been picked up for at least a day or so. If they didn't inform him, how on earth was he supposed to resolve the issue, or even be aware of it in the first place?
If you substitute uninsured driver for cyclist, would they (the cyclist) have been made liable for the accident and costs? Of course not.
IMO cougar (and pretty much everyone else) has it right. There are two things at play, neither has any bearing on the actual turn of events.
Driver A should be liable for the accident, Driver B should have been done for no insurance ONLY.
Im thinking there is some information missing. i.e. Driver B was notified that his DD had failed or he got the dates wrong.
Here's my scenario from last year.
Car changes lanes and hits me. Driver scarpers. I get a picture of him and his reg number.
Car is SORN, and not insured. Plod go and see the driver and he says it wasn't him.
Police say my pics are not evidence enough and walk away. My insurance pay for damage to my car.
Uninsured drivers? Burn them, burn them all.
Car is SORN, and not insured. Plod go and see the driver and he says it wasn't him. Police say my pics are not evidence enough and walk away.
so the moral of this thread is drive like a * and brazen it out and you'll pretty much get away with anything. Get hit by a *, tough shit it's your problem.in the eyes of the law the uninsured driver is at fault and no blame or liability will be with driver A.
Haven't read the other replys
Obviously not, try my one up there with a quote from Supreme Court judges.
Police say my pics are not evidence enough and walk away. My insurance pay for damage to my car.
As should have been the case with Cougar's mate, what the police do or don't do has no direct effect on the civil case of who is liable for the damages. Though of course if the car isn't insured then you're into lots of hassle anyway.
As far as the DD bouncing is concerned....the Direct Debit Guarantee is either read out to the customer, or sent out, and it details the dates of payments. The insurance company cannot take payments early according to this guarantee - payments falling on a bank hol or weekend will be taken after the date, not before.
If the insurance company was at fault, driver B would have been entitled to a refund, blah blah.
Something else is going on in this case, or maybe driver B is insured with a really dodgy company. The company I work for would charge admin fees if your DD failed and would only cancel after a few attempts at payment had failed. Several attempts would be made to contact the customer. Not all companies would do this, I'd guess.
Btw, when the truck ploughed into driver B he wasn't doing something silly like undertaking?
Edit - sorry got my As and Bs the wrong way round!
The insurance company cannot take payments early according to this guarantee
Although at least two people on this thread so far have had insurance cancelled due to this happening.
nealglover - Member
The insurance company cannot take payments early according to this guarantee
Although at least two people on this thread so far have had insurance cancelled due to this happening
Yep, apparently. My wife got a dd refunded because the company (not insurance) tried taking it early.
I don't know how legally binding the Guarantee is, but it's read or sent out every time a dd is set up. If it was worthless why would any company waste their time?
If it was worthless why would any company waste their time?
Equally, if it was iron clad, how did my insurance get cancelled.
I don't know the answer to either question, and only have personal experience as a reference point.
But I check every month now to be sure it's been requested and taken.
Haven't read the other replys but in the eyes of the law the uninsured driver is at fault and no blame or liability will be with driver A.
As noted we have actual quotes from the jusges showing this to not be the case
It is a similar scenario if driver B was drink driving, even if they were not at fault and had god as their witness, the fact that they were drink driving would automatically place them at fault in the eyes of the law and driver A would not be liable for anything.
Imagine you are drunk and parked up with the engine running [ technically drunk driving iirc] and I ram you sober at 100 mph on the wrong side fo the road killing you
You really think its automatically their fault because they are pissed [ if you like they can moving legal on their side of the road]
I really dont understand how anyone can think this is remotely likely to be true.
This thread seems to have gone full circle?
I really dont understand how anyone can think this is remotely likely to be true.
Apparently you're confusing the law with common sense.
Thankfully the law now agrees with common sense after the supreme court judgement. If you are parked up drunk in the drivers seat, you get rammed onto the pavement killing a child you will only be found guilty of drink driving, not of killing the child (IIRC they used almost exactly that scenario in their arguments). The judges ruled that you had to have done something wrong (other than just drink driving) to be criminally liable in that case - though not necessarily wrong enough to be considered even careless driving (from my reading, I think being parked in an illegal manner - ie facing the wrong way at night - would be sufficient for that). sine qua non (google it) is not sufficient on its own.
The supreme court judges considered the issue of civil liability to be so obviously unaffected by the driver being uninsured that they didn't even explain it.